Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
Mifflin Company, electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation), we find that
appellant has clarified the meaning of the term “finger tip” as required by the examiner.
We find that appellant’s interpretation of “finger tip” as that “part of the finger above the
first knuckle” (brief at page 4) is reasonable in view of the above dictionary definition, in
light of the claimed and disclosed invention as a whole. Therefore, we find that the
language of the claim is definite, and we will not sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 12.
35 U.S.C. § 102
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, and dependent claims 10-12, the
examiner maintains that Ruell teaches the sensing of a fingerprint pattern and a
biometric characteristic other than the fingerprint pattern which would be the pulse
frequency. (See Ruell Figures 11 and 12 and column 9, lines 28-38 and answer at
pages 5-7.) We agree with the examiner that the presence of a pulse frequency would
have been a different biometric other than the fingerprint. Appellant argues the
definitions of “vivid” and “artifacts.” (See brief at pages 4-6.) We disagree with
appellant’s interpretation of the rejection. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the phrase “other hand biometric characteristic” is defined
in appellant’s specification. (See reply brief at page 1 and specification at pages 3-4.)
We disagree with appellant and find no such clear definition in the specification. We
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007